Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2010_02_24 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE ZONING BOARD OF THE TOWN OF MAMARONECK TOWN CENTER 740 WEST BOSTON POST ROAD MAMARONECK,NEW YORK February 24,2010, Present: Arthur Wexler, Chairman Linda S. Harrington Frederick Baron Irene O'Neill Ronald Meister Robert Viner Also Present: Lisa Hochman,Counsel Ronald A. Carpaneto,Director of Building David Fishman,Liaison NinaCrescenzi,Public Stenographer Carbone&Associates,LTD 111 N. Central Park Avenue Hartsdale,New York 10530 Francine M.Brill,Recording Secretary CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 7:50 P.M. Mr. Wexler thanked Ms.Harrington for her 15 years of service to the Town,7 '/2 of which was with the Zoning Board of Appeals Ms. Harrington stated that it has been a pleasure to work with the Board. APPLICATION NO. 1—CASE NO. 2856 Claudia and Ari Kandel,8 Boulder Road On motion of Mr.Baron,seconded by Mr.Viner the Public Hearing was opened. Donald Schweter,the applicant's architect,appeared and addressed the Board. Mr. Schweter described the proposal. Three letters from neighbors in support of the project were entered into the record and marked"Exhibit A." The Board discussed the proposed plan.There were no comments from the public. On motion of Mr. Baron,seconded by Ms. Harrington the Public Hearing was closed. After review, on motion of Mr. Wexler, seconded by Mr. Baron, the following resolution was proposed and ADOPTED unanimously,5-0. Ayes: Baron,Wexler,Harrington,O'Neill,Viner Nays: 1 WHEREAS,Claudia and Ari Kandel requested a variance to construct a new roof over the existing family room, to expand the family room, construct a fire place and relocate existing exterior stairs on the premises located at 8 Boulder Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town Of Mamaroneck as Blockl l0,Lot 504;and WHEREAS, the Building Inspector declined to issue such permit on the grounds that the plans submitted failed to comply with the Town of Mamaroneck Zoning Ordinance with particular reference to Section 240-38(3),240-38 B(1),240-38B(2)(a),240-51A and 240-69;and WHEREAS, Claudia and Ari Kandel submitted an application for a variance to this Board for the reasons set forth in such application;and WHEREAS, the proposed family room expansion and new family room roof configuration has a rear yard of 16.71 feet where 25 feet is required;and WHEREAS, the proposed family room expansion and new family room roof configuration has a front yard of 21.76 feet where 30 feet is required;and WHEREAS,the proposed stair relocation has a side yard of 6.48 feet where 10 feet is required;and WHEREAS,the side yard stair as proposed has a square footage of 50 square feet where 40 square feet is required;and WHEREAS,the proposed construction will have architectural features projecting feet beyond the plane of the wall all of the proposed structure;and WHEREAS, the proposed addition increases the extent by which the building is nonconforming; and WHEREAS,this Board has examined the plans,inspected the site,reviewed the application and has heard all persons interested in this application after publication of a notice thereof and a hearing thereon;and WHEREAS,this is a Type II action having no significant impact on the environment pursuant to 6 NYCRR§617 et seq.and,accordingly,no further action under SEQRA is required;and WHEREAS, the Zoning Board of the Town of Mamaroneck makes the following findings as required by New York State Town Law §267-b: 1. The Board finds that the benefit to the applicant from the granting of the variance outweighs any detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community. In reaching this conclusion,the Board considered the following factors: A. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of the area variance: The Board feels that the reconfiguration of the new roof and the set back of the addition to the garage will enhance the appearance of the house,which will have a beneficial effect on nearby properties. B. Whether the benefit sought by the applicants can be achieved by some method feasible to the applicants other than an area variance: The Board finds that because the house is already nonconforming and is located on a corner lot with two required front yards,the sought improvements cannot be achieved by any means other than an area variance. C. Whether the area variance is substantial: 2 The Board finds that despite the apparent magnitude of the rear, front and side yard variances, the location of the house on a corner lot allows for a substantial amount of light and air between the proposed construction and any neighboring houses,rendering the impact of the area variances insubstantial. D. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district: The Board finds that there will be no adverse impact on the neighborhood or district because there will be no additional runoff,lights,or noise. E. Whether the difficulty is self-created: The Board finds that the difficulty is self-created, but that this factor is not determinative. 2. For the reasons stated above, the granting of this variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of this Ordinance and will not be injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare. 3. For the reasons stated above, the variance is the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty detailed in the application yet also preserves and protects the character of the neighborhood and the health,safety and welfare of the community. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the subject application be and the same is GRANTED,subject to the following conditions: 1. This variance is limited to the construction shown on the submitted plans as conditioned and/or modified in accordance with the direction of the Board and as agreed to by the applicant at the February 24,2010 meeting(s)of the Board; 2. The applicant shall submit plans reflecting any conditions or modifications as above for the review and approval of the Director of Building prior to the granting of the building permit. 3. The applicant shall obtain a building permit within six(6)months of the filing of this Resolution. 4. The building permit shall be void if construction is not started within six(6)months and completed within two(2)years of the date of said permit. 5. Construction shall be in compliance with the plans submitted in connection with this application,as conditioned or modified pursuant to the direction of the Board. This decision shall be filed with the Town Clerk as provided in Section 267-a(2)of the Town Law. APPLICATION NO.2—CASE NO.2858 Zeev and Barbara Schori,740 Forest Avenue On motion of Mr.Wexler,seconded by Mr.Viner the Public Hearing was opened. Ms.Harrington recused herself. Robert Liffland,the applicant's electrical contractor,appeared and addressed the Board. Mr. Liffland described the air conditioning condenser units. Ms.Harrington,the adjacent neighbor residing at 742 Forest Avenue,read a letter of support into the record. The Board discussed the specifications of the units and requested that the applicant look into smaller quieter units and resubmit plans which show the exact placement of the units on the property. 3 The matter was adjourned to March 24,2010. MINUTES There was no motion to adopt the minutes from the January Board meeting. ADJOURNMENT On motion of Mr.Wexler,seconded by Mr.Baron the meeting was adjourned at 9:10 P.M. Minutes prepared by Francine M.Brill Zoning Board of Appeals Secretary 4